Tag Archives: place-of-supply

VAT: B2B and B2C – The distinction and importance

By Marcus Ward 1 August 2023

A key feature of the place of supply rules is the distinction between B2B (business to business) and B2C (business to consumer) supplies. The distinction is important because it determines, inter alia, whether GB VAT is applicable to a supply made by a GB supplier.

Status of the customer:

B2C: A supply is B2C when the customer is a private individual, an organisation with only non-business activities or the supply is wholly for private use (eg for the private use of a business owner)
B2B: A supply is B2B when the customer has any level of business activity (though if a supply is wholly for private use it remains B2C). It does not matter if the supply is for a non-business activity of the customer or if the customer is not VAT registered. All that matters is the customer has some level of business activity – this includes VAT exempt activity and taxable activity below the VAT registration threshold VAT place of supply.

To apply the B2B treatment a GB supplier must obtain evidence that the customer has business activities. If the supplier cannot obtain any evidence, they should apply B2C treatment.

If the customer is VAT registered, the customer’s VAT number is evidence of status and it is good practice to quote this on the supplier’s invoice. A GB supplier should check the customer’s VAT registration number is in the correct format for the country concerned. This can be done via the EC Vies website. for EU customers. NB: Special evidence rules apply to electronically supplied services.
If the customer is not VAT registered, a GB supplier should obtain and retain evidence that the customer has business activities. HMRC state “If your customer is unable to provide a VAT number, you can accept alternative evidence.This includes certificates from fiscal authorities, business letterheads or other commercial documents indicating the nature of the customer’s activities”.

A supplier needs to identify where his customer belongs in order to establish the place of supply.

VERY broadly, depending on the nature of the supply, the rule of thumb is that a B2B service is GB VAT free (it is subject to a reverse charge by the recipient as it is deemed to be “supplied where received”) but a B2C service is generally subject to GB VAT, regardless of the place of belonging of the recipient. There are exceptions to these rules however, such as the use and enjoyment provisions, land related services, hire of transport and admission to events.

VAT: How to characterise a supply – The tests

By Marcus Ward 27 June 2023

In the age-old matter of whether a supply is separate/composite/compound for VAT purposes which and what is the nature of that supply, the Court of Appeal case of Gray & Farrar International LLP has provided very helpful guidance. A background to facts of the initial hearing here (although this decision was overturned by both the UT and the CoA).

I have previously considered these types of supply here, here, here, here, and here. Although not specifically concerning composite/separate supplies, the case sets out a hierarchy of tests to be applied in characterising a single supply for VAT purposes which now sets the standard. These test are:

The Mesto predominance test should be the primary test to be applied in characterising a supply for VAT purposes.
The principal/ancillary test is an available, though not the primary, test. It is only capable of being applied in cases where it is possible to identify a principal element to which all the other elements are minor or ancillary. In cases where it can apply, it is likely to yield the same result as the predominance test.
The “overarching” test is not clearly established in the ECJ jurisprudence, but as a consideration the point should at least be taken into account in deciding averments of predominance in relation to individual elements, and may well be a useful test in its own right.

Comments

The Mesto Test

CJEU Mesto Zamberk Financini (Case C-18/12)

The primary test to be applied when characterising a single supply for VAT purposes is to determine the predominant element from the point of view of the typical consumer with regard to the qualitative and not merely the quantitative importance of the constituent elements.

Principal/ancillary

If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost, it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.

Overarching

A generic description of the supply which is distinct from the individual elements. In many cases the tax treatment of that overarching single supply according to that description will be self-evident.

CPP

One must also have regard to the Card Protection Plan Ltd case. This has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Digital Euro introduction delayed

By Marcus Ward 21 June 2023

The European Commission’s proposal for the introduction of a digital Euro has been delayed.

The adoption was planned for 28 June 2023, but this has now been postponed. There is currently no news on a new date.

What is digital Euro?

As a digital form of central bank money, the digital Euro will offer greater choice to consumers and businesses in situations where physical cash cannot be used. However, the digital euro would be a complement to cash, which should remain widely available and useable.

A digital Euro would offer an electronic means of payment that anyone could use in the euro area. It would be secure and user-friendly, like cash is today. As central bank money issued by the ECB, it would be different from “private money”, but you could also use a card or a phone app to pay with digital euro. It is intended to provide an anchor of stability for our money in the digital age.

Further details here.

VAT: Place of supply – The Sports Invest case

By Marcus Ward 5 May 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).

The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.

Background

Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.

The Issues

To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?

As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?

The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.

VAT Liability

The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).

Decision

The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.

The appeal against the assessment was upheld.

Commentary

The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.

VAT – What records must be kept by a business?

By Marcus Ward 5 April 2023

VAT Basics: Requirements for VAT records by taxable persons

I thought that it may be useful to round-up all the record-keeping requirements in one place and focus on what HMRC want to see. It is always good practice to carry out an ongoing review a business’ records to ensure that they comply with the rules.

General requirements

Every taxable person must keep such records as HMRC may require. Specifically, every taxable person must, for the purposes of accounting for VAT, keep the following records:

business and accounting records
VAT account
copies of all VAT invoices issued
VAT invoices received
certificates issued under provisions relating to fiscal or other warehouse regimes
copy documentation issued, and documentation received, relating to the transfer, dispatch or transport of goods overseas and/or imported
credit notes, debit notes and other documents which evidence an increase or decrease in consideration that are received, and copies of such documents issued
copy of any self-billing agreement to which the business is a party
where the business is the customer party to a self-billing agreement, the name, address and VAT registration number of each supplier with whom the business has entered into a self-billing agreement

Additionally

HMRC may supplement the above provisions by a Notice published by them for that purpose. They supplement the statutory requirements and have legal force.

Business records include, in addition to specific items listed above, orders and delivery notes, relevant business correspondence, purchases and sales books, cash books and other account books, records of daily takings such as till rolls, annual accounts, including trading and profit and loss accounts and bank statements and paying-in slips.

Unless the business mainly involves the supply of goods and services direct to the public and less detailed VAT invoices are issued, all VAT invoices must also be retained. Cash and carry wholesalers must keep all till rolls and product code lists.

Records must be kept of all taxable goods and services received or supplied in the course of business (standard and zero-rated), together with any exempt supplies, gifts or loans of goods, taxable self-supplies and any goods acquired or produced in the course of business which are put to private or other non-business use.

All records must be kept up to date and be in sufficient detail to allow calculation of VAT. They do not have to be kept in any set way but must be in a form which will enable HMRC officers to check easily the figures on the VAT return. Records must be readily available to HMRC officers on request. If a taxable person has more than one place of business, a list of all branches must be kept at the principal place of business.

Comprehensive records

In addition, we always advise businesses to retain full information of certain calculations such as; partial exemption, the Capital Goods Scheme, margin schemes, TOMS, business/non-business, mileage and subsistence claims, promotional schemes, vouchers, discounts, location of overseas customers, and OSS, amongst other records. The aim is to ensure that any inspector is satisfied with the records and that any information required is readily available. This avoids delays, misunderstandings and unnecessary enquiries which may lead to assessments and penalties.

If you have any doubts that your business records are sufficient, please contact us.

VAT: The Windsor Framework

By Marcus Ward 1 March 2023

While we await the fine details, trade between GB and Northern Ireland is likely to be subject to new rules. These are set out under the heading of The Windsor Framework published by HM Government.

(Very) General

Via the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), Northern Ireland operated under the EU VAT rules. There are revised VAT rules set out in The Windsor Framework. The EU rules on VAT rates will not apply to a list of goods for consumption in Northern Ireland in certain circumstances.

The Windsor Framework amends the legal text of the NIP to ensure that Northern Ireland will be subject to the same VAT and excise rules that apply in the rest of the UK.

The Framework means that legislation to apply the zero-rate of VAT to energy saving materials can be introduced. A number of other flexibilities should enable UK-wide VAT changes to apply in Northern Ireland. It is anticipated that future VAT issues can be addressed in order to manage any divergences in policy between GB and Northern Ireland.

A bit more detail

The Windsor Framework sets up a new UK internal trade scheme, based on commercial data-sharing rather than traditional international customs processes.

Under the NIP, a framework exists that allows goods to move from GB to Northern Ireland tariff-free. If the goods do not fall within that framework, they are treated as if moving across an international border and full customs declarations are required.

This Framework introduces arrangements through a new UK internal market system (colloquially called the “Green Lane”) for internal trade. Goods being sold in Northern Ireland will not be subject to “unnecessary paperwork, checks and duties”.

The new scheme will significantly expand the number of businesses able to move goods using the Green Lane by being classed as internal UK traders.

The Changes

To ensure that internal UK trade is protected, the agreement expands the number of businesses able to be classed as internal UK traders and move goods as ‘not at risk’ of entering the EU through three changes:

businesses throughout the UK will now be eligible – moving away from the previous restrictions that required a physical premises in Northern Ireland.
the turnover threshold below which companies involved in processing can move goods under the scheme which they can show stay in Northern Ireland is increased from the current £500,000 limit up to £2 million (this means that four-fifths of manufacturing and processing companies in Northern Ireland who trade with GB will automatically be in scope).
if businesses are above that threshold, they will be eligible to move goods under the scheme if those goods are for use in the animal feed, healthcare, construction and not-for-profit sectors.

Businesses in the scheme that can show their goods will stay in Northern Ireland will gain access to a simplified process for goods movements, using ordinary commercial data rather than customs data.

Goods moving to the EU will be subject to normal third-country processes and requirements.

Reduction in so-called frictions

The Framework seeks to address a range of issues that added frictions or costs for internal UK trade:

safeguarded tariff-free movements of all types of steel into Northern Ireland .
a forward process for ensuring that Northern Ireland businesses can access other goods subject to Tariff Rate Quotas in the future, dealing with the unique disadvantages under the existing system.
where businesses cannot be certain of the end destination of their goods when first moving them into Northern Ireland, a new tariff reimbursement scheme for those who can show the goods were ultimately not destined for the EU.

VAT: Exemption of fund management services

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2023

HM Treasury has published a consultation paper on the treatment of the service of management of special investment funds (SIFs).

SIF meaning in VAT terms

There is no definition of a SIF in existing legislation.

Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Trust plc (case C-363/05) ruled on the interpretation of the term ‘Special Investment Funds as defined by Member States’.

The key points in this judgment are:

the term ‘special investment funds’ is capable of including closed-ended investment funds, such as investment trust companies (ITCs)
Member States have a discretion to define ‘special investment funds’ for the VAT exemption but, in doing so, must pay due regard to:
the purpose of the exemption
the principle of fiscal neutrality.

According to the Court, the purpose of the exemption is to facilitate investment in securities for investors through investment undertakings. This requires there to be VAT neutrality between the direct investment in securities and investment through collective investment undertakings, as the latter incurs a management charge. Furthermore, there must be equality of VAT treatment for funds which are similar to, and in competition with, funds falling within the scope of the exemption.

As a result of the case, the exemption was extended so that there was a level VAT playing field for all similar collective investment undertakings which compete in the UK retail market. This includes closed and open-ended collective investment undertakings, umbrellas and sub-funds, as well as some pension schemes.

The fund management exemption is limited to the management of SIFs. Consequently, the management of other investment funds will generally be standard-rated.

Legislation

The current VAT fund management regime is provided for by UK legislation, retained EU law and case law. The VAT Act 1994 implemented the Directive. Schedule 9, Group 5, Items 9 and 10 of the Act lists specific types of funds, the management of which is exempted from VAT.

Place of supply

This is important for SIFs management as if the supply is in respect of overseas funds the services are excluded from the exemption (they are outside the scope of UK VAT) when received overseas. This means that there is no output tax on the supply, but unlike exemption, it affords full recovery on input tax incurred in the UK. The perfect VAT outcome.

HMRC Consultation

The technical consultation sets out proposed reform of the legislation that provides for the VAT treatment of fund management. This is required because the fund management industry continues to innovate and introduced new types of funds to the marketplace, and the existing approach has struggled to keep pace with the evolution of the industry and proliferation of fund types.

The purpose of the exercise is to improve the legislative basis of the current VAT treatment of fund management.

Danger?

It is proposed that the following criteria for a fund to be considered a SIF would be legislated for:

a) the fund must be a collective investment

b) the fund must operate on the principle of risk-spreading

c) the return on the investment must depend on the performance of the investments, and the holders must bear the risk connected with the fund; and

d) the fund must be subject to the same conditions of competition and appeal to the same circle of investors as a UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities), that is funds intended for retail investors

There is a danger that if the exemption is broadened, fund managers which can now recover input tax may be denied so in the future.

If you have any queries, please contact us.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!

VAT: Additional time for zero rating exported goods due to the coronavirus

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2020

COVID-19 Update

HMRC has published concessions in VEXP30310 relating to the conditions for the zero rating of exports.

Background

Most exports of goods from the UK are subject to zero rating. However, in order for VAT free treatment to apply, certain conditions must be met, otherwise 20% VAT applies to the sale. One of the conditions is that the goods must be exported within specified time limits.

Time limits

Generally, goods can be zero rated provided that:

they are exported within 3 months of the time of supply, and;
valid evidence of export is obtained within 3 months of the time of supply

COVID-19

During the pandemic, it may not be possible for businesses to export goods within the prescribed time. HMRC recognises that some intended exports have been delayed due to circumstances outside a business’ control. Therefore, the guidance sets out the circumstances in which HMRC may agree to additional time for the export before any tax is collected.

Additional time

The time limits for the export of goods from the UK are set out in legislation. However, HMRC has discretion to permit non-observance of the conditions and time limits for export of goods – VAT Act 1994, Section 30(10). HMRC has said that it will use its discretion to temporarily waive the prescribed time limits for export on a case by case basis. The goods must, however, have either already been exported or will be as soon as is reasonably practicable after the date a business is notified that HMRC is temporarily waiving the tax. An application for HMRC to waive the time limits must be made in writing.

Conditions

HMRC will permit a temporary waiver of time limits if the following conditions are met:

it has not been possible to export goods within the prescribed time limit due to the COVID-19 emergency

Examples include:

the UK or another Government has imposed restrictions on the movement of goods or people due to COVID-19 that prevent the goods being exported to the intended destination
cancellation of the intended mode of transport for reasons directly related to COVID-19
a participant in the export is ill due to COVID-19 and a substitute cannot be found

This list is not exhaustive.

2. the goods have been/will be exported or removed at the earliest opportunity

3. all other conditions for zero rating exports or removals are met – exporters’ responsibilities here

Expiry

Any waiver will expire

one month after any government-imposed restrictions are lifted or
one month after any COVID-19 impediment to the export or removal ceases, or
there ceases to be an intention to export or remove the goods from the UK (Information on intention here)

whichever is the earlier.

If a business considers there are extenuating circumstances that mean additional time is needed to export goods beyond that permitted by the extension, it should contact HMRC setting out the details in full.

Evidence

A business must retain evidence that supports its case for the waiver (eg; cancellation notes demonstrating that the transport intended to use to take goods out of the UK did not take place, or screen shots of government rules preventing the export or removal of the goods).

Please contact us if you require any further advice or assistance.

VAT: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By Marcus Ward 18 May 2020

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

* AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.